what do you call the son of a duke?

[Particle_Man]

For my campaign, I use the following rules:

That is too good not to use. Thanks! For the rest of the comments, thanks too, but my campaign does not require a high level of realism. (I mean, I even have there be only two languages (common, druidic secret tongue) in the entire universe of the game world because I wanted to keep things simple). Interesting stuff, though.

 

[Tonguez]

May I just add that Baron and Baronet are not titles of Peerage - they are just aristocratic ones given to Knights

Anyway for an entirely different system of Peerage how about Ethiopain?

Negusa Negust - Emperor (lit King of Kings)

Negus or Amir - King (One had to be elevated to the the rank of negus by Imperial decree)

Ras is the highest noble rank, sometimes borne by minor princes of the Solomonic blood. (The word's origin is Indo European, hence Indias' raj, the Egyptian' ra, Roman' rex.)

Bitwoded Literally "beloved" by the king, the highest non-royal title ranks after ras in precedence.

Dejazmach It originally referred to a "gate keeper."

Fitawrari is a noble title and was formerly a military one, meaning "leader of the vanguard."

Gerazmach (abbreviated Geraz.) is translated literally "military commander of the left." This is one of the lower aristocratic titles

Kenyazmach (abbreviated Kenyaz.) is equivalent in rank to gerazmach, to which it may be considered complementary. It means "military commander of the right."

Balambaras is a lower title of nobility of ancient origin, literally "castellan" or commander of a fortress. Similar in some respects to dejazmach but considered a lesser title.

Ato. Traditionally 'sir' for a gentleman.

Woizero (abbreviated Woiz.) Traditionally an aristocratic lady

Lij. Literally "child," this is a title reserved to the children of the titled nobility.

Titled nobles collectively were the makwanent.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

In my worlds I would generally prefer for the inheritors and children of titled nobility to have heraldic titles.

So that the Duke of Sunil's heir might be the Bull of the Sun, as that's the symbol and regalia associated with that position for that title.

Though at times I have simply used Prince to refer to any member of the major aristocracy who does not have or does not yet have a seat. Thus you would have a fairly wide community of Princes.

For further identification you might install a title in front of prince:
the ducal prince, the baronial prince, and so forth.

 

[Dingleberry]

Bo or Luke, of course.

 

[The_Universe]

May I just add that Baron and Baronet are not titles of Peerage - they are just aristocratic ones given to Knights

In more modern systems that's true - but in a feudal system, barons and baronets were landholders, as were even the lowliest knight. Honor and glory are great - but back in the day, honor and glory weren't nothin' compared to a section of dirt.

That is too good not to use. Thanks! For the rest of the comments, thanks too, but my campaign does not require a high level of realism. (I mean, I even have there be only two languages (common, druidic secret tongue) in the entire universe of the game world because I wanted to keep things simple). Interesting stuff, though.

Seconded! Great stuff. Consider it stolen.

You're both very welcome, as well. I have half a mind to turn it into an article for somebody. Anybody interested?

Bo or Luke, of course.

HAHAHAAH! Awesome. Although weren't they nephews...?

 

[Tonguez]

HAHAHAAH! Awesome. Although weren't they nephews...?

Nope Bo & Luke Duke - means their father must have been a Duke too
True they lived with Uncle Jessie and cousin Daisy though (mmmm short shorts! )

 

[Agback]

In more modern systems that's true - but in a feudal system, barons and baronets were landholders, as were even the lowliest knight.

Um.

There were no baronets in any feudal system. The rank of baronet was created by King James I on 22 May 1611. http://www.burkes-peerage.net/sites/peerage/sitepages/page66-baronet.asp.

Also, the lowliest knights did not hold land. There were many landless knights who served in the households of landowners (ie. as military retainers) in return for their keep and gifts of cash, horses, arms etc.. And there were some knights who had neither land nor household positions, who eked out their existence as mercenaries or professional athletes (eg. the early career of William Marshal). And of course from at latest 1118 and on past the end of the feudal period the various holy fighting orders included thousands of knights who had no property or had given it up, having taken vows of poverty.

 

[D+1]

Well, that's the full Busby Berkeley late-mediaeval profusion in its full development, with reduplication for extra redundancy (ie. you list both 'count' and its English equivalent, 'earl).

One question: why did you decide to put a viscount (vice-count) above a count?

You are of course free to design your campaign how you want, but I would have thought that this inversion would be confusing.

Only to people who think that it all has to be real-world equivalent. I can guarantee you that a large percentage of players won't know, or even if they do know they won't care if you mix the peerages of England, France, Prussia, and Arabia.

The listing did indeed have as its initial source the Social Level charts of the original City State of the Invincible Overlord. Since I'm going to be using the CSIO social level, I'm going to be using the very same sort of slightly whacky progression it implies. I know that a Viscount is lower in peerage than a Count but in all the time I've been working on this list I simply hadn't noticed the misplacement from the original material. But you know what? I think a campaign world becomes MORE interesting if Earls and Counts AREN'T equivalent (which I hadn't known or realized until you mentioned it) or that there's some completely undetermined reason for a Viscount to have been strangely elevated above a Count.

Now part of that comes from the fact that Judges Guild has for nearly 30 years advocated just that sort of attitude - make it up and make it YOUR campaign, not someone elses. The reason I'm using CSIO in the first place is that this is intended to be a very retro-feel campaign that uses such hopelessly antiquated game rules artifacts as having player characters keep a numerical Social Level. So, even knowing that it IS wrong just makes me want to keep it in place all the more. If anyone ELSE notices I can make up an explanation that adds interest to my campaign world rather than try to conform to anyone elses idea of How It Should Be, much less reality.

I could name them Snooks, Florgs and Whoozles and have them elected to a hereditary position every midsummers day in a flurry of ballot-box stuffing and street riots. I probably would too if it weren't for the fact that "Florg" is meaningless (unlike Snook or Whoozle) and THAT would confuse people. But I digress.

The point is that like fantasy-world physics nothing needs to be accurate - only consistent. You are free of course to rigidly apply a strictly British or French peerage system if you like, but where's the fun in that?

 

[Turjan]

The point is that like fantasy-world physics nothing needs to be accurate - only consistent. You are free of course to rigidly apply a strictly British or French peerage system if you like, but where's the fun in that?

That's completely okay . The misplaced Viscount is kind of obvious, though. Why should the deputy of the Count (Vice-Count) have a higher rank than the Count himself ?

 

[The_Universe]

Um.

There were no baronets in any feudal system. The rank of baronet was created by King James I on 22 May 1611. http://www.burkes-peerage.net/sites/peerage/sitepages/page66-baronet.asp.

Also, the lowliest knights did not hold land. There were many landless knights who served in the households of landowners (ie. as military retainers) in return for their keep and gifts of cash, horses, arms etc.. And there were some knights who had neither land nor household positions, who eked out their existence as mercenaries or professional athletes (eg. the early career of William Marshal). And of course from at latest 1118 and on past the end of the feudal period the various holy fighting orders included thousands of knights who had no property or had given it up, having taken vows of poverty.

No disputing that nobility and aristocracy take on a different character past the feudal period.

Sorry about the Baronet - either an error in my source material, or a misread on my part as I went through it.

Anyway, if you look back at my original post, Barons and Baronets (and thus knights, as well) are noted as not always being landed. However, higher ranking nobles (IMC, at least) certainly are.

If that disagrees with how you would do it - go for it. I was just trying to help.